The socialy conservative Ann Coulter, whose idea of virtue is to only do one guy when she visits LA to denounce the morally depraved Clinton administration on Politically Correct, or perhaps cite homosexual promiscuity to oppose gay marriage? was bounced from National Review after she called Rich Lowry, Joanie Goldberg et al. girlie boys.

Anybody notice the irony that NR, with its usual braveness under the partisan putz Rich Lowry, gives Coulter free reign for all kinds of hyperbole but one attack on Lowry's virtue and she's expunged?

Anyway, Coulter's term is profoundly unfair---to girls.

Girls are soft and fluffy. Lowry, Goldberg et al are just a bunch of heterofaries, twittering about flaunting their own wit and bravery as they lock horns with feminists, radical blacks and other difficult targets.

Back to Jonah.

Goldberg, a second-string conservative pundit, today esentially confirmed that he colluded with the carefully orchestrated, pre-mediated effort by Hudson Institute fellow Michael Horowitz to convince Herbert Gahr, the self-described "low class Jew from the Bronx," that his journalist son who, by some strange coincidence, lost his job at the government-subsidized think tank. eager to maintain the good graces of Karl Rove just days after he embarassed Rove with his veiled criticim of Paul Weyrich for his one little blood libel was actually cut loose for taking a long leap off the deep end, hand in paw, with Louis E. Chimpstein. Bob Brame, the lawyer for Hudson who, no joke, was long associated with a group that favors capital punishment for homosexuals caught in the act, two witnesses required, no stoning , without due process later made a similar argument, citing an email that Goldberg apparently provided.

Jonah, of course, made his name--or more accurately made his mother's name better known--by railing against Bill Clinton's dishonesty. How many Clinton whoopers involved something of Simian-esque proportions?

Anyway, when Michael Horowitz telephoned Dr. Gahr, as one concerned father to another he later insisted, he relied on material from Goldberg and at least one other conservative to "explain" that Chimpstein was responsible for his son's dismissal, (Chimpstein.com is in the process of outing the other collaborator.)

Actually, Horowitz who had privately told acquaintances he thought Hudson was wrong, with the help of Goldberg, publicly told Dr. Gahr Hudson was correct. Is that called lying?

Asked about his collusion, Jonah Goldberg issued a slick non-denial, denial and procedeed to once again manifest all the finess and integrity of Vladmir Posner.

If anyone else asks--by the way when was the last time Howard Kurtz did a critical item about National Review or the Weekly Double Standard?--this could be one time when Jonah declines to talk about himself.

--Evan Gahr for Chimpstein.com, forthcoming.

In a message dated 2/22/04 12:03:02 AM, EvanGahr writes:

<< Your fellow Jewish "conservatives" knowingly worked with a radical Islamic group to oppose gay marriage. Any objections?

Your recent column about gay marriage said that everyone you ask can't give you a straight answer on whether the various amendments allow for civil unions. Who did you ask? Anybody even the least bit familiar with the issue could easily give you the answer.

When we sat together at the AEI dinner, you told me a joke about homosexuals and Cato. Care to repeat it?

My email to Ramesh and John Miller insulting them ended up with Hudson. They have no contacts w/Hudson. You do with Ken Weinsein. Did you give him the email. In elementary school that's called being a tattle tale. What do you call it?

Michael Horowitz cited your particular email to me, which nobody else at Hudson seemed to have, after he telephoned, badgered and frightened my own mother and father and lied to them regarding my dismissal. Did you offer him the email? Or did he give it to you? Did you know what he planned to do with it?

You claimed my dismissal from Hudson was my own fault. Hudson made esentially the same argument, citing my use of a stuffed chimp in a television debate. Is that still your position? How did Chimpstein reflect poorly on Hudson?

In a message dated 2/22/04 9:46:04 AM, JonahNRO writes:

<< Evan - I give you my word on this: I am not the source of any of your problems. I have no idea where you're coming from with any of this and, frankly, I don't care. I will not be engaging with you in any way unless its necessary to protect myself or my family legally, professionally or otherwise from you. As far as I am concerned there is no "us" and I would be grateful if you took the same approach. Don't bother writing to me again. I really do wish you the best of luck in your endeavors.

Combine a non-denial denial with innuendo about my mental health, etc, imply that I'm responsible for the quasi anti-Semitic purge that you apparently helped Hudson blame on a stuffed chimp, and make veiled threats all with just one succinct paragraph.

You're the most talented journalist since Vladmir Posner.

Perhaps if one of your fellow Jewish "conservatives" downs a planeload of gays on their way to marriage in Mass. you can get on ABC and explain it was really the gays fault--or mine for reporting it.

And dig that little reference how you might need to protect your family, legally, professionally or OTHERWISE from me.

I would ask what I've done that might require protection from the otherwise--make menacing gestures with Louis E. Chimpstein? Per Rick Santorum and Mona thinking I swing from the other side of the tree try to have my way with your dog?--but Marty Peretz told me not to dawdle over unworthy people. He also laughed when I pointed out the irony of Lucianne Goldberg's son complaining about somebody violating supposed confidential communciations.

So please spare me the little CPUSA-style innuendo how these questions are really a manifestation of my "problems," etc.

Why do key Washington,DC and NYC reporters read my emails about what you try to pretend is just my own little psychodrama with a stuffed chimp, and even ask key parties about all the stuff.

Are they moonlighting as psychologists?

Are you answering these questions? I have a suggestion (no sarcasm intended). If you don't want to answer them perhaps it would be good for both of us if you just said as much--without making me the issue.

IN SEARCH OF ANTI-SEMITISM - page25

I do hope that those of you most vexed will consider the possibility that you misread the editorial I wrote, and will do me the favor of rereading it.

A month or so later a letter from a rabbi. Daniel E. Lapin wrote from the Pacific Jewish Center in Venice, California:

Mr. Buckley, I am not sure that I fully understand the fuss about Sobran. The writing of Richard Cohen et al. strikes me as disingenuous. Sobran's "Pensées" in NR, December 31, 1985, on the other hand, laid the foundations of a dozen sermons in my synagogue. As you may remember from our brief meeting when you spoke for Brandeis Bardin Institute in Los Angeles, my rabbinic credentials are adequate.... If there is any way I can be useful to you, Mr. Sobran, or National Review, I would be honored. Insofar as there is something called anti-Semitism (as opposed to anti-Godism), I just don't believe Mr. Sobran is one.

The range of opinion on National Review and Joe Sobran ran, thus, the gamut.

Evan Gahr EvanGahr@aol.com, a former press critic for the late New York Post editorial page editor Eric Breindel, recently broke the story of a race discrimination lawsuit against the Washington Post. He has written for almost every major conservative publication.